Bohnwagner v. Skea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bohnwagner v. Skea

277 A.D.2d 337, 716 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 337 (Bohnwagner v. Skea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bohnwagner v. Skea, 277 A.D.2d 337, 716 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated September 7, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated November 23, 1999, which dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The defendant established that his statements were covered by qualified privilege (see, Schell v Dowling, 240 AD2d 721). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant’s statements were false or that they were made with malice (see, Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437), or that the statements were factual in nature as opposed to expressions of opinion (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283; Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 153). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated September 7, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated November 23, 1999, which dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The defendant established that his statements were covered by qualified privilege (see, Schell v Dowling, 240 AD2d 721). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendant’s statements were false or that they were made with malice (see, Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437), or that the statements were factual in nature as opposed to expressions of opinion (see, Steinhilber v Alphonse, 68 NY2d 283; Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 153). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 337, 716 N.Y.S.2d 338, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bohnwagner-v-skea-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack